38080 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected

by this AD, that it will take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the required inspections,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the inspections required by

this AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $300, or $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

198–15–05 British Aerospace Regional

Aircraft (Formerly British Aerospace

Regional Aircraft Limited, Avro

International Aerospace Division; British

Aerospace, PLC; British Aerospace

Commercial Aircraft Limited):

Amendment 39–10656. Docket 98–NM–

87–AD.

Applicability: Model BAe 146–200A series

airplanes, as listed in British Aerospace

Service Bulletin SB.55–16, dated July 14,

1997; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect and correct cracking of elevator

hinge rib 1 of the horizontal stabilizer, which

could result in damage to the structural

attachment of the elevator to the horizontal

stabilizer and consequent reduced

controllability of the airplane; accomplish

the following:

(a) Within 60 days after the effective date

of this AD, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1) and

(a)(2) of this AD, in accordance with British

Aerospace Service Bulletin SB.55–16, dated

July 14, 1997.

(1) Perform a visual inspection of the gust

damper of the elevator control system to

determine if the gust damper is properly

charged. If any gust damper is found to be

improperly charged, prior to further flight,

recharge the gust damper in accordance with

the service bulletin.

(2) Perform a detailed visual inspection,

using a borescope, to detect cracking of

elevator hinge rib 1, on the left and right side

of the airplane, in accordance with the

service bulletin. If any cracking is found,

prior to further flight, replace any cracked

hinge rib 1 with a new or serviceable part,

in accordance with a method approved by

either the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate; or procedures provided by the

manufacturer that are approved by the Civil

Aviation Authority.

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(d) The inspections and recharge shall be

done in accordance with British Aerospace

Service Bulletin SB.55–16, dated July 14,

1997. This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from AI(R) American Support, Inc., 13850

Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171.

Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in British airworthiness directive 010–07–97,

dated March 2, 1998.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

August 19, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18651 Filed 7–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–197–AD; Amendment

39–10655; AD 98–15–04]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A320 series airplanes, that requires

repetitive inspections for fatigue

cracking of the bottom flanges of the

longitudinal floor beams at frame 43;

and repair, if necessary. This

amendment also requires a one-time

inspection for fatigue cracking of the

fastener holes in the longitudinal floor

beams, and modification of the floor
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 38081

beams, which constitutes terminating

action for the repetitive inspections.

This amendment is prompted by

issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

civil airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent fatigue cracking on

the bottom flanges of the longitudinal

floor beams, which could result in

reduced structural integrity of the

airplane.

DATES: Effective August 19, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of Augut 19,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Airbus

Model A320 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

April 14, 1998 (63 FR 18158). That

action proposed to require repetitive

inspections for fatigue cracking of the

bottom flanges of the longitudinal floor

beams at frame 43; and repair, if

necessary. That action also proposed to

require a one-time inspection for fatigue

cracking of the fastener holes in the

longitudinal floor beams, and

modification of the floor beams, which

would constitute terminating action for

the repetitive inspections.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

One commenter supports the

proposed rule.

Request To Allow Flight With Cracks

One commenter requests that the

proposed AD be revised to allow

continued operation of the airplane

following the detection of cracks,

provided operators follow the defined

values for follow-on inspections and

repairs as recommended in Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–53–1085. The

commenter states that the structure of

Airbus A320 series airplanes is

classified as damage tolerant.

Additionally, based on fatigue test

results and calculations of the crack

propagation rate, the manufacturer has

defined in the service bulletin an

appropriate number of flight cycles for

continued flight with cracks, depending

on the crack length detected. Finally,

the commenter notes that the inspection

program recommended in the service

bulletin was developed in order to

prevent the need for extensive repair of

the aircraft.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to allow continued

operation of the airplane following the

detection of cracks. Generally, the FAA

considers that damage tolerance

assessment methodologies are effective

for establishing an inspection program

that will detect cracks before failure

occurs, but they are not sufficiently

accurate to predict precisely and

reliably the rates at which identified

cracks will propagate to failure.

Additionally, the FAA recognizes that

there are adverse human factors

associated with the performance of

repetitive inspections that may reduce

safety if such repair deferrals are

practiced routinely.

Therefore, it is FAA policy to require

repair of known cracks prior to further

flight whether the airplane structure is

classified as damage tolerant or not,

rather than to use the principles of

damage tolerance as a tool to manage

existing cracks. There may be certain

exceptions to this policy for cases where

there is an unusual need for a temporary

deferral of the repair, such as difficulty

in acquiring parts to accomplish a repair

in a timely manner. Since the

commenter has not identified any

unusual need that would warrant an

exception to FAA policy in this

instance, the FAA has determined that,

due to the safety implications and

consequences associated with such

cracking, any subject bottom flange or

fastener hole that is found to be cracked

must be repaired or modified prior to

further flight. No change to the final rule

is necessary.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 5 airplanes of

U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 3 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the required

inspection of the bottom flanges, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the inspection required by this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $900,

or $180 per airplane, per inspection

cycle.

It will take approximately 32 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required inspection of the fastener holes

and required modification, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost between $649

and $3,056 per airplane, depending on

the service kit purchased. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

inspection of the fastener holes and

modification required by this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be as low

as $12,845, or $2,569 per airplane, and

as high as $24,880, or $4,976 per

airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is
38082 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

98–15–04 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–10655. Docket 97–NM–197–AD.

Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes,

on which Airbus Modification 20904

(reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–

1008, dated March 31, 1995) has not been

accomplished, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent fatigue cracking on the bottom

flanges of the longitudinal floor beams at

frame 43, which could result in reduced

structural integrity of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later, perform a visual inspection for

fatigue cracking of the longitudinal floor

beams at frame 43, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–53–1085, dated March

31, 1995.

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 6,000 flight cycles.

(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(b) Prior to the accumulation of 32,000

total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight

cycles after the effective date of this AD,

whichever occurs later, accomplish

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD.

Accomplishment of paragraphs (b)(1) and

(b)(2) constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements of this

AD.

(1) Perform a one-time eddy current (rotary

probe) non-destructive test (NDT) inspection

for fatigue cracking of the fastener holes on

the longitudinal floor beams at frame 43, in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–53–1008, dated March 31, 1995. If any

cracking is detected, prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–

116.

(2) Modify the floor beam fasteners in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–53–1008, dated March 31, 1995.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(e) The visual inspection shall be done in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A320–53–1085, dated March 31, 1995. The

eddy current inspection and the modification

shall be done in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–53–1008, dated March

31, 1995. This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 96–236–

089(B), dated October 23, 1996.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

August 19, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18650 Filed 7–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

29 CFR Part 4044

Allocation of Assets in SingleEmployer Plans; Interest Assumptions

for Valuing Benefits

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation’s regulation on Allocation

of Assets in Single-Employer Plans

prescribes interest assumptions for

valuing benefits under terminating

single-employer plans. This final rule

amends the regulation to adopt interest

assumptions for plans with valuation

dates in August 1998.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,

1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC

20005, 202–326–4024. (For TTY/TDD

users, call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be

connected to 202–326–4024.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

PBGC’s regulation on Allocation of

Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29

CFR part 4044) prescribes actuarial

assumptions for valuing plan benefits of

terminating single-employer plans

covered by title IV of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Among the actuarial assumptions

prescribed in part 4044 are interest

assumptions. These interest

assumptions are intended to reflect

current conditions in the financial and

annuity markets.

Two sets of interest assumptions are

prescribed, one set for the valuation of

benefits to be paid as annuities and one

set for the valuation of benefits to be

paid as lump sums. This amendment

adds to appendix B to part 4044 the

annuity and lump sum interest

assumptions for valuing benefits in

plans with valuation dates during

August 1998.

For annuity benefits, the interest

assumptions will be 5.40 percent for the

first 25 years following the valuation

date and 5.25 percent thereafter. The